From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-id: <1376387202.31048.2.camel@AMDC1943> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Pin page control subsystem From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:46:42 +0200 In-reply-to: <1376377502-28207-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> References: <1376377502-28207-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit MIME-version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Seth Jennings , Mel Gorman , guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, Benjamin LaHaise , Dave Hansen , lliubbo@gmail.com, aquini@redhat.com, Rik van Riel , Tomasz Stanislawski Hi Minchan, On wto, 2013-08-13 at 16:04 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > patch 2 introduce pinpage control > subsystem. So, subsystems want to control pinpage should implement own > pinpage_xxx functions because each subsystem would have other character > so what kinds of data structure for managing pinpage information depends > on them. Otherwise, they can use general functions defined in pinpage > subsystem. patch 3 hacks migration.c so that migration is > aware of pinpage now and migrate them with pinpage subsystem. I wonder why don't we use page->mapping and a_ops? Is there any disadvantage of such mapping/a_ops? Best regards, Krzysztof -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org